BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 392
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 392 (Alejo) - As Amended: April 14, 2011
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:6-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires a local agency to post, at least 72 hours
before a regular meeting of a legislative body, the agenda and
applicable staff-generated reports on the local agency's
Internet Web site, if any. For a local agency without an
Internet Web site, the bill requires a local agency to disclose
on the physically posted agenda the public location where the
local agency makes available any applicable staff-generated
reports for public inspection and copying at least 72 hours in
advance of the regular meeting. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits any action or discussion to be undertaken on any
item for which a related staff-generated report was not
disclosed as provided for in these provisions unless the
legislative body is responding to public testimony or the
legislative body public identifies the item and meets the
following conditions:
2)Requires, if requested, the writings be made available in
appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability,
as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
3)Requires a local agency to post at least 72 hours before a
regular meeting of a legislative body the agenda and
applicable staff-generated reports on the local agency's
Internet Web site, if any, and, for a local agency without an
Internet Web site, requires a local agency to disclose on the
physically posted agenda the public location where the local
agency makes available any applicable staff-generated reports
for public inspection and copying at least 72 hours in advance
of the regular meeting.
AB 392
Page 2
4)Provides for specified exceptions including an emergency.
5)Provides that reimbursement for any mandated costs will be
administered by the Commission on State Mandates.
FISCAL EFFECT
Annual state-reimbursable GF costs in the millions of dollars.
The bill's requirements affect a large number of agencies.
There are almost 500 cities, 58 counties, 90 community college
districts, 1,000 school district and 4,000 special districts.
The costs will vary dramatically by the size of an entity.
Larger agencies already post many materials on their web site or
at least have the capability of carrying this out. For agencies
that do not have a suitable web site, there will be added costs
of copying and making space available for viewing. If each of
the 5,500 local public agencies cited in this paragraph have one
mandate claim of $1000, the total costs of the bill would be
approximately $5.5 million.
This illustration of costs is not necessarily representative.
The individual mandate claims could be much higher, smaller
counties with less capable hardware and software are estimating
$20,000 to $200,000 upgrades would be required. In addition the
number of entities is underestimated because the Brown Act
applies to boards and commission of local government.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose. According to the author, while legislative bodies
complying with current law post their agendas in a publicly
accessible place, this does not include access to
staff-generated reports. The public can view materials
associated with a particular agenda item, but are bound by the
business hours of the local agency. The author says often
times a request to review materials is satisfied right before
the meeting begins, not allowing sufficient time for an
individual to review, read and comprehend the information
prior to the meeting. The author says, in a survey of all 58
counties, all of them already post their agendas online and 47
also post staff-generated reports. Of 58 randomly selected
cities, 56 cities post their agendas online and 47 post
AB 392
Page 3
staff-generated reports.
2)Web sites. Larger local government agencies tend to have
sophisticated Internet Web sites and dedicated information
technology staff. Many smaller local agencies, especially
special districts and cities, however, either do not have an
Internet Web site or have a very simple static site that
contains only their name, mailing address, phone number, and
basic information and is not frequently updated and does not
readily have the capability of updating. Broadband is not
even available in some areas of the state, making it
impossible to conform with the bill's requirements for
Internet access. Those smaller local government agencies
might instead choose to pull their Internet Web sites
completely.
3)Non-functioning web site. AB 392 does not provide any safe
harbor provision for when a local government's Internet Web
site is not functioning. It is not unusual for server
problems to arise with increased Internet traffic and usage,
especially if a larger report on a controversial subject is
posted in its entirety. There also are situations when the
local government might not be aware its Internet Web site is
not working. Project opponents could undertake a denial of
service attack, which consists of the concerted efforts of a
person or people to prevent a site or service from functioning
efficiently or at all. If for any of these reasons the
servers were down, the local agency would not be in compliance
with this bill.
4)Relevant legislation. AB 1344 (Feuer, 2011), pending in this
committee, has a similar provision that requires the
legislative body of a local agency to post at least 72 hours
in advance the agenda for a regular meeting on the local
agency's Internet Web site if the local agency has one.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081